What no jeremy cobyn thread?

Blank_Canvas said:
I wonder what Corbyn's next u-turn will be - 'accepting that we need to keep Trident as a nuclear deterrent' perhaps ?
Click to expand...

I wonder if perhaps you read yesterday's papers before making your Mystic Meg post? ;)

6:39PM BST 18 Sep 2015


Labour MPs who have agreed to serve as shadow defence ministers under Jeremy Corbyn were told that the party will not back scrapping Trident or Britain's membership of Nato.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-being-told-Trident-will-not-be-scrapped.html

PUBLISHED: 17:11, 18 September 2015 | UPDATED: 20:32, 18 September 2015

  • Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to back down over his fierce opposition to Britain's nuclear deterrent.

The veteran anti-war campaigner just this week said he did not want Labour to vote for the renwal of Trident in order to 'fulfil our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty'.

However, Mr Corbyn has now accepted that Labour MPs will not unite against the government's plan to renew Trident in a vote next year
Click to expand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-turn-party-s-opposition-nuclear-weapons.html
 
dejongj said:
Once he will get access to the privy council and truly understand the risks. They all change once they get access to the facts. Most of the public would as well.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the public know the facts too? That's perhaps the best argument for support of the freedom of information act. Or are we considered unsuitable in some way?
 
bindex said:
Why shouldn't the public know the facts too? That's perhaps the best argument for support of the freedom of information act. Or are we considered unsuitable in some way?
Click to expand...
Yes most definitely unsuitable, the fact you even consider it to have to be public information just confirms that it shouldn't.

That doesn't mean you can't become suitable in case you get on your high horse. Everyone can become suitable to such access pending your migration status, need for access and following vetting procedures and training on how to handle such information.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
I wonder what Corbyn's next u-turn will be - 'accepting that we need to keep Trident as a nuclear deterrent' perhaps ?
Click to expand...

Regardless of what he thinks, Trident and any future equivalents are here to stay.
 
dejongj said:
Yes most definitely unsuitable, the fact you even consider it to have to be public information just confirms that it shouldn't.

That doesn't mean you can't become suitable in case you get on your high horse. Everyone can become suitable to such access pending your migration status, need for access and following vetting procedures and training on how to handle such information.
Click to expand...

I do take your point and to be fair to a certain extent I agree, but the real question is where we draw the line. I suspect that in many cases information that is perfectly harmless is withheld almost by default.
Of course there are instances when it is genuinely vital to keep it secret for the security and safety of us all, but it's also right and just as vital that we always have the ability and right to question authority.

I wouldn't dream of getting on my high horse though... guaranteed to fall off! ;)
 
bindex said:
I do take your point and to be fair to a certain extent I agree, but the real question is where we draw the line. I suspect that in many cases information that is perfectly harmless is withheld almost by default.
Of course there are instances when it is genuinely vital to keep it secret for the security and safety of us all, but it's also right and just as vital that we always have the ability and right to question authority.

I wouldn't dream of getting on my high horse though... guaranteed to fall off! ;)
Click to expand...
And that is exactly why there is apolitical separation and I hope long may it last. There is the judiciary, there are oversight committees, there are independent lawyers reviewing it.

But most importantly, let's not forget there are tens of thousands of people like you and I and others involved. People who have to look and analyse the s*** other do, people who have to go through ongoing counciling by being exposed to such horrible material, people who do question what is going on. The majority of people do have a solid sense of responsibility and those same good people do work in such areas as well. Just like there are people who abuse it.
 
He has many policies that do not have the support of even 40% of the British voting public, never mind his own MP's ........ that's the problem for Labour ......... now he has some support he should form his own Party or the rest of the Labour MP's should ......... the worrying thing that has happened is that HM Opposition is now as weak as it's even been ....... I am not a Labour supporter but it is important that the Opposition in Parliament has some meaning, it is almost now becoming comical, one day it's this, the next day it's that, IMHO
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Once he will get access to the privy council and truly understand the risks. They all change once they get access to the facts. Most of the public would as well.
Click to expand...

Sadly true.
You only have to look at the last Labour government who put some very liberal ministers into the Home Office, only for them to become the opposite very quickly.

I used to be very cynical about that, but now I'm resigned to the fact that if we all knew what was going on, we wouldn't be such great exponents of the freedoms we all enjoy (and some take advantage of).
 
Phil V said:
...snip

I used to be very cynical about that, but now I'm resigned to the fact that if we all knew what was going on, we wouldn't be such great exponents of the freedoms we all enjoy (and some take advantage of).
Click to expand...
I never thought of it like that, but in a weird way that is indeed the main benefit of not having it public information. Very well put :thumbs:
 
'If I told you, I'd have to kill you.'
We'll find out in fifty years.
 
holy s*** you kids are still at it
 
Pot kettle?
 
Mr Bump said:
holy s*** you kids are still at it
Click to expand...
If you just ignore the odd post from the politically dyslexic who just want to slag off a politician they don't agree with, there's some interesting debate on this thread IMHO (and from various political persuasions)
 
I'm rapidly going off the guy....

1. He truly remembered the lyrics to Red Flag and could sing loud enough to join in.... Yet can't do the national anthem...
2. Kept on talking about his huge 250K voting mandate... Hmmm still a bit less than 11.7M isn't it ;)
3. Hmmm what policies? Very super light on content.
4. He is joining an anti-austerity protest rally at the location of the Conservative party conference during the conference. Unbelievable disregard for etiquette once again.

Any benefit of doubt I've given him previously he is doing his best to loose it. Seriously not fit to lead a country other than straight into a war. Not that he'll loose sleep over my lack of support....
 
dejongj said:
I'm rapidly going off the guy....

1. He truly remembered the lyrics to Red Flag and could sing loud enough to join in.... Yet can't do the national anthem...
Click to expand...
Can't or won't? I've not seen him tested on his knowledge of the lyrics.

dejongj said:
2. Kept on talking about his huge 250K voting mandate... Hmmm still a bit less than 11.7M isn't it ;)
Click to expand...
Irrelevant comparison, given he's not faced a national plebiscite yet.
He's got more of a mandate than Brown or Major had when they took office, and they were PM.

dejongj said:
3. Hmmm what policies? Very super light on content.
Click to expand...
He's said he wants policy to be determined by consensus - that will take time.
Anyway, surely you've lived here long enough to know that policies aren't important. UKIP fought the last European elections with a manifesto so small you could fit it on a beer mat, and they did rather well.
 
dejongj said:
1. He truly remembered the lyrics to Red Flag and could sing loud enough to join in.... Yet can't do the national anthem.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I could remember all the lyrics to The Red Flag but not many from the National Anthem.

The first word of the National Anthem is enough to stop me from singing it.


Steve.
 
I don't know the words to either and don't intend to neither!!!
 
Llamaman said:
He's said he wants policy to be determined by consensus - that will take time.
Click to expand...

To me, that seems backwards.
I would have thought a leader would stick with what they believe in. (any leader, I've not looked into whether or not Cameron, Farron etc do this)

It seems hypocritical to lead a party that doesn't believe the same things that you do.
... this goes for any leader of a party.

Is he the right man for the job in this case?
 
kendo1 said:
To me, that seems backwards.
I would have thought a leader would stick with what they believe in. (any leader, I've not looked into whether or not Cameron, Farron etc do this)

It seems hypocritical to lead a party that doesn't believe the same things that you do.
... this goes for any leader of a party.

Is he the right man for the job in this case?
Click to expand...

Now I actually quite like that, and so far he has come across as a nice guy... but while his policies sound great in theory there is no detail and we fall into fantasyland. He is being quite clever, he knows that he is a divisive leader despite his big win (its harder for many in the party to support him) so he is trying to tell the rest of the part not to revolt.

Easy for him to be anti-nuclear prior to this, but now he can't really do that with the unions breathing down his neck on this (funny, but when its around banking or something its always the Tories looking after their rich chums but nothing is said when its Labour looking after their union friends!!!) - plus he knows it would cost billions in jobs so has to be practical.
 
cambsno said:
Now I actually quite like that, and so far he has come across as a nice guy...
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with his policies, he does seem to be a genuinely nice person. I read something yesterday where he said that he has no intention of promoting his ideas by using personal attacks on people and he suggests respectfully listening to people's opinions and discussing them rather than just dismissing them just because they might originate from a different political party Arguing the points being made without attacking the person makes sense to me.


Steve.
 
BRASH said:
I don't know the words to either and don't intend to neither!!!
Click to expand...

I'm not actually sure if I remember the words to The Red Flag either as I have never sung it but I could probably come up with something close if I had to. I'm old enough to remember it as the closing music on the comedy series Citizen Smith.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with his policies, he does seem to be a genuinely nice person. I read something yesterday where he said that he has no intention of promoting his ideas by using personal attacks on people and he suggests respectfully listening to people's opinions and discussing them rather than just dismissing them just because they might originate from a different political party Arguing the points being made without attacking the person makes sense to me.


Steve.
Click to expand...
But that is the norm, not anything beyond it...Yet he happily not sing the national anthem, yet surely he wants to represent the country?, and is being very rude by going on a protest against another party during their conference...Yes sure nice guy....Nice when it suits him...To me he is really starting to come across like a spoilt and selfish git.
 
Steve Smith said:
Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with his policies, he does seem to be a genuinely nice person. I read something yesterday where he said that he has no intention of promoting his ideas by using personal attacks on people and he suggests respectfully listening to people's opinions and discussing them rather than just dismissing them just because they might originate from a different political party Arguing the points being made without attacking the person makes sense to me.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I thought the same when listening to his speech last week. The fact he insists on sticking to the politics without descending to the gutter level of personal insults says a lot about him as a person.
 
kendo1 said:
It seems hypocritical to lead a party that doesn't believe the same things that you do.
... this goes for any leader of a party.
Click to expand...

Does this mean it's hypocritical to be a member of a party where you don't believe in every policy the party has? Where would the conservatives be on Europe, where would the Lib Dems be on federalism?

If more than 50% of labour members voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader after the outings they all had then this suggests that the party members believe in the same things as he does. What I think you're now seeing is the PLP, who didn't generally vote for him, basically start trying to hamper him and he's into compromise politics with the PLP.
 
Jim_Tod said:
Does this mean it's hypocritical to be a member of a party where you don't believe in every policy the party has? Where would the conservatives be on Europe, where would the Lib Dems be on federalism?

If more than 50% of labour members voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader after the outings they all had then this suggests that the party members believe in the same things as he does. What I think you're now seeing is the PLP, who didn't generally vote for him, basically start trying to hamper him and he's into compromise politics with the PLP.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as being hypocritical to be a member of a party if you believe in their general policies, if not all of them, but to be a leader of a party
and then ask for suggestions on what the party should be standing for ...
 
kendo1 said:
but to be a leader of a party
and then ask for suggestions on what the party should be standing for ...
Click to expand...
Its the socialist way, fair speech and input for everyone concerned.
As opposed to a dictator who says "you will do "this", you will believe in "this""

;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
Cobra said:
Its the socialist way, fair speech and input for everyone concerned.
As opposed to a dictator who says "you will do "this", you will believe in "this""

;)
Click to expand...
I'm not thinking about dictators, or Jeremy Corbyn in particular, it's just I would have thought a leader of a party should surely know
what he is standing for and believe in it, not put his beliefs out for tender.
It's more a case of 'I believe in doing this for this reason, follow and elect me' not 'what do you think I should do?'
 
kendo1 said:
but to be a leader of a party
and then ask for suggestions on what the party should be standing for ...
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. A leader of a party is just a member. He was elected by a majority of the labour membership (of which I'm not one) on a mandate for a change of policies which makes it difficult to pick up the leadership baton and wholeheartedly back the existing policies or decide you have to resign just because the changes you want aren't all there- that was the point of the membership choosing you.

Labour are a year away from being able to change the policies at the next party conference so might as well start talking about things and let their membership come to some clear views on their own. As he's stuck with the Labour MP's that didn't vote for him this also gives him a chance to let them see if they are out of step with the general membership.

I don't think Corbyn ever really thought he'd become leader or actually wanted it but having been elected you have to give him a bit of time to find his feet and try it his way. I have more respect for the principled politician than the self serving one.
 
I suspect most MPs are principled- whatever flavour they are!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
kendo1 said:
It seems hypocritical to lead a party that doesn't believe the same things that you do.
... this goes for any leader of a party.

Is he the right man for the job in this case?
Click to expand...
But the party members do believe in the same things - that's why he won in a landslide.
The problem (for him) is that the Labour Party was hijacked by New Labour, and they now have dozens of MPs who aren't remotely socialist. Corbyn can't fix that easily - withdrawing the whip would decimate the party, and the next election is a long way off so he can't purge the selection lists.
 
Llamaman said:
But the party members do believe in the same things - that's why he won in a landslide.
The problem (for him) is that the Labour Party was hijacked by New Labour, and they now have dozens of MPs who aren't remotely socialist. Corbyn can't fix that easily - withdrawing the whip would decimate the party, and the next election is a long way off so he can't purge the selection lists.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember New Labour being voted in- probably because the people thought their policies were what they wanted.
 
Llamaman said:
But the party members do believe in the same things - that's why he won in a landslide.
The problem (for him) is that the Labour Party was hijacked by New Labour, and they now have dozens of MPs who aren't remotely socialist. Corbyn can't fix that easily - withdrawing the whip would decimate the party, and the next election is a long way off so he can't purge the selection lists.
Click to expand...

They don't. Some will be pro euro and some anti like in the Tories. Not many of us like all the policies of our parties, we pick the one with the most or the ones that matter.
 
kendo1 said:
I'm not thinking about dictators, or Jeremy Corbyn in particular, it's just I would have thought a leader of a party should surely know
what he is standing for and believe in it, not put his beliefs out for tender.
It's more a case of 'I believe in doing this for this reason, follow and elect me' not 'what do you think I should do?'
Click to expand...
No argument here, I was being ironic :D
 
I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn is as honest and straight talking as he claims to be. I have noticed that in many interviews he totally ignores some direct questions and they're not silly questions either. Sure, all politicians appear to not answer a question but usually do answer it even if it involves talking a lot about the broader aspects first, or taking the opportunity to snipe at their opposition party on the way to giving an answer. Corbyn rudely ignores many questions outright. I find him devious and humourless and he behaves as if he was a messiah - Just because he has the same JC initials as Jesus Christ doesn't mean he can behave as if he is able to walk on water.

Treating The House of Commons Question Time as if it was a public radio phone-in was ridiculous and extremely irresponsible in its time wasting. Regardless of whether I agree with his policies or not, I don't see him as a dignified representative of Britain in international affairs. Anyway, we'll see how the cookie crumbles.
 
kendo1 said:
I seem to remember New Labour being voted in- probably because the people thought their policies were what they wanted.
Click to expand...
A general election doesn't reflect how party members think.
New Labour's triumph was convincing the same people who backed Kinnock to adopt a more centrist position. But a crushing election defeat (especially in Scotland) has seen them return to the comfort of the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top